On 03.07.25 00:01, Matthew Brost wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> index 6c77550c51af..5426b435f702 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static void ttm_bo_unreserve_bulk(struct kunit *test)
>> dma_resv_fini(resv);
>> }
>>
>> -static void ttm_bo_put_basic(struct kunit *test)
>> +static void ttm_bo_fini_basic(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> struct ttm_test_devices *priv = test->priv;
>> struct ttm_buffer_object *bo;
>> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ static void ttm_bo_put_basic(struct kunit *test)
>> dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
>> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, err, 0);
>>
>> - ttm_bo_put(bo);
>> + ttm_bo_fini(bo);
>
> Intel's CI [1], see Kunit tab, is indicating an issue with the
> selftests.
Even without any change the ttm_bo_validate subtest is crashing for me and I
was about to disable those crashing tests.
My guess is that the test never worked 100% reliable and relies on some
incorrect assumptions.
> Unsure if this suggestion would fix the kunit failure, but
> would it not be better to just ref count gem BOs in the kunit tests and
> create a mock drm_gem_object_funcs ops in in which free calls
> ttm_bo_fini? Then in selftests replace ttm_bo_fini with
> drm_gem_object_put?
Yeah that is one possible solution I had in mind as well, but I thought about
disabling the failed test first and then discussion with Thomas what to do
about it.
Christian.
>
> Matt
